In article ,
sid wrote:

Nice comment there sid. So, can you decode it? Wouldn't your sarcastic
comment been a bit more humiliating for me

Waste of time trying to humiliate you any further, you're doing a fine job
of that all by yourself.

Insults. How unexpected!

Lots of hot air there, sid.

2 commas and a question mark, like this:

Why, are you saying conversations, personalities and characters can't be
present across threads?

Yeah, I also figured as much. What would he mean by that? What kind of
"presence" would personalities and characters have across threads?

But thanks anyway, the first time you actually put up something other
than mere hot air! Very good!

Huh? You have obviously not been following along, Sid. You are in a
thread which I started. The very first post contained links to photos
I've taken. It was quite on topic, but contained a spelling (or rather,
a grammar) mistake.

Drunk Dave joined the thread for one purpose only - to make a grammar
flame. I didn't attack his grammar or spelling, he attacked mine.

Well, no. He actually joined the thread to say you'd taken some nice pics.

I obviously disagree. The very first sentence in his post was a grammar
flame:

"Surely it should be, My family and I................."

Now, I don't mind that at all. I *know* I make mistakes and I know I
made a mistake in this very thread. But then Dave ironically enough also
had a grammar mistake in his grammar flame, something too ironic to pass
up on. I made fun of this just as he had made fun of me and all would
have been well and nice if not the Illiterati had joined and claimed
that no no no, they had read Dave's mind and Dave's sentence was
*supposed* to be grammatically incorrect, mixing tenses, having
incorrect punctuation and capitalisation - it's a *cultural reference*!

It was supposed to be written that way.

You keep *saying* that.

So yes, I *did* miss the cultural reference. I admitted to that, and
that did lessen the "fun" I had previously made of Dave, but not the
point - because everyone citing the actual cultural reference curiously
left out the grammatical mistakes that I had pointed to the entire time.

Rinse and repeat over and over again, with me supporting,
substantiating, making examples and you guys that just go "nuhnuhnuh you
don't get it, end of story" without you know... doing anything of the
above.

http://stumac27.wordpress.com/2012/0...-like-wot-i-do
-6/

Great example to prove my point. The lack of a third person justifies
the "do" tense of the word. Compa

"Speak English the way I do it"
"Speak English the way the Queen does it"

"Does" is used with third person singular pronouns. In your example, the
"do" is not en example of a mixed tense.

http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/0...k-proper-like-
wot-we-do/

Same here. "we" is a first person plural pronoun, and "do" is proper
usage. So another example of a grammatically, but one that does not also
use the wrong tense of the word "do".

http://boards.dailymail.co.uk/news-b...can-we-get-bri
ts-talk-proper-like-wot-i-do.html

And yet another one to prove my point. First person singular pronoun;
"do".

The problem, as I'm sure you're aware of by now, was that Dave
mistakenly wrote "like what me and the queen do" where he should have
used "like what me and the queen DOES". And that's ignoring the other
mistakes.

You really are being stupidly stubborn.

Also grammatically correct, and your three links supported me just fine.
Thank you again, Sid.

I'll reiterate another example I've used. Daves use of the catchphrase
is akin to me writing this:

"I've lose me marbles"

That is absolutely nothing like it at all. There is no inference to correct
speech there at all. That's the whole point you seem to be missing.

My example above is to illustrate a phrase that has inherent grammatical
errors, yet also contains an error not inherent in the phrase itself.

The original phrase has bad grammar, fine. The use of the phrase has
even more bad grammar and mixing of tense. It's either "have lost" or
"will lose" (or "can lose" or whatever), not "have lose". That's mixing
tenses in the quote and that is ironic to do in a grammar flame.

You're getting yourself very confused over this, it's not as complicated as
you seem to think.

I don't think it's complicated at all. It's really really easy. Your
references, Dave himself and Pensive Hamster have no problem
understanding that mixing tenses isn't common for this phrase.

You're off your ****ing rocker with the desire to prove yourself correct
aren't you.

No.

Kinda proving my point with every post you make

Well, to be fair, in this post of yours - you're the one with a desire
to prove me correct.

Tell me, Sid, when was I ever rude to you without you being rude to me
first? I really like a Message ID here to verify that I was persistently
rude to you that prompted your arrogance and sarcasm towards me. I'll
obviously apologize since that rarely is my style. I can be pretty
hostile towards people that are hostile towards me, but I try to not
start the hostilities. Obviously, I may have done so at some point, so
please point me in the right direction and a sincere apology will be
forthcoming.

I wasn't referring to anything you have said to me

Ah, so you're just rude to me after rolling a dice?

you are however obsessively rude to Dave.

Huh? Do you have any support for this claim, i.e. that I have been rude
to him prior to him being rude to me? I may have. I know I've called him
"Drunk Dave" based on his constant mangling of letters, and that's a
play on his nickname. It was never meant rudely, but I guess it could be
interpreted as such.

I know, you got busy quickly with grammar flames instead.

You've set yourself up for that though haven't you.

Where did i set myself up for that, Sid? In what way? You just made
a claim and I bet you won't bother to support it. "set myself up"
surely suggest that in the past, I make lots of grammar flames
towards people (or just Dave). I know I have alerted him in the
past when I have been unable to understand a given sentence, but
please point me to where I have "set myself up" for this, Sid.

You don't remember the previous threads recently in this group that you have
argued over the correct usage of English words or phrases?

Absolutely! How does arguing about definitions of English words "set me
up" for grammar flames from Dave? I can't remember ever arguing about
definitions of words with Dave. The only people I can remember "arguing"
with are Tony, Eric and Peter. Tony and Eric are trolls so they will
argue anything just to argue, and with Peter I only argued about the
definition of the word "pejorative" which he thought was a synonym for
"vulgar".

I may have missed some, but neither of those "set me up" for *grammar*
flames, as far as I know. Maybe Dave saw me talk about the definition of
a word and assumed that since I talked about word definitions, my posts
must be grammatically impeccable? But that's hardly my fault. I haven't
claimed to be grammatically correct at all times (lord knows I aint not
that!) and I don't do grammar flames myself. I really don't do spelling
flames either, but I do admit that I have called out Daves "erratic"
spelling (or what you would call it) earlier.

Thank you in advance.

your wellcom

That's not my wellcom!



--
Sandman[.net]